About Me

Dr. Clyde Winters, has taught in the Chicago Public Schools for 36 years. He has taught Education and Linguistic Courses at Saint Xavier University-Chicago. As a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools Dr. Winters wrote State Standards in the 1990's for the Chicago Public School system and Common Core State Standards for Social Studies. He also wrote the 6th Grade World History Lesson Plans used in the CPS in 2000.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Outsiders have always tried to deny the ancient history of Negro and African people.
I believe that there are at least three races: African, Mongoloid and European. These races can be differentiated by distinctive characteristics that include facial features, especially the noses and nasal cavities; head shape/form, hair type and etc. These features that distinguish each race can be recognized by simply eyeballing members of the different races. As a result members of each race can get tanned, or have dark skin and still be disguished as belonging to different races.
When I refer to Negroes I am talking about Black people who originated in Africa, who later migrated out of Africa and retained their Negro features. I recognize that Negro features include varying phenotypes that include facial features from the 'true negro'type to negroes having thin lips and noses.
In the past they claimed Negro/African people did not have a history. Afro-American former slaves learned to read and discovered the truth.
They learned two things: 1) the classical literature and 2) Bible claimed that Black/African people founded the first civilizations. They began to inform other AAs that we had a history.
The Euronuts changed the script to counter this literacy.Formerly, the Classical literature was accepted as having historical value--when AAs used it to illustrate our ancient history--the Euronuts claimed the Classical literature was a collection of myths. To imply that when AAs recognized our participation and founding the first civilizations.
By the middle to late 1800's Blacks began to attend University, usually Harvard. At Harvard they learned that physical antropologist were able to study skeletal remains, especially skulls and pelvises and differentiate these skeletal remains into four races. Studying the literature, AAs discovered that the physical anthropologists identified skeletons from ancient civilizations. The findings indicated that they were Negroes.
This finding confirmed the Classical literature's identification of the founders civilization as Negroes of varying sizes, but phenotypically negro.
AAs collected this data and researchers wrote papers and books illustrating that Blacks had an ancient history based/supported by contemporary anthropological and archaeological sources. Euronuts claim that Afrocentric researchers use old data to support their work, this is false, if you check these works you will find they current with times they were written.
Euronuts became fed up with AAs proving that they had an ancient history. So in the 1980's, after it was established man originated in Africa, some anthropologists began to claim races do not exist. And that anyone who claimed people can be divided into races--are racist.
This was a fallacy.Although most physical anthropologist, parroted this line, forensic anthropologist continued to admit that races existed because police needed them to expertly identify the skeletal remains of people who had been murdered.
During this period anthropologists moved away from identifying the skeletal remains along racial lines. But they continued to imply that the ancient river valley civilizations were found by 'whites'. These anthropologist used a relativist view to explain who founded this or that civilization. This relativist view implied that the people living in a particular region today have always been resident in that region eventhough the skeletal record proved otherwise. By promoting this view, anthropologists were able to claim that the history of Black people began and ended in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Geneticist accepted the relativist view. They spread the idea that genome from contemporary groups represented the genome of ancient populations. They claimed that African male and female lineages were E and L respectively, while European ,lineages varied J,H, R, N, M and etc. Using this analogy they began to claim that any African carrying M or R, must carry this gene as a result of a back migration.
There are two problems with this theory. First there is no evidence of a back migration. And 2) the DNA recovered from ancient skeletons is not related to the people presently living in this areas. Moreover, in Eurasian many of the excavated skeletons are of negroes--not Europoid or Mongoloid.
This evidence confirmed the research of DuBois that Blacks founded the major ancient civilization. These findings made it clear J.A. Rogers and W.E.B. DuBois were right.
As a result of this, Afrocentric researchers don't care what non-Afrocentric nuts say about our history. We say to people who deny this history to prove us wrong.
Just as Europeans lie, fake Asian researchers,also lie because they don't have an ancient history .
.

Sunday, September 4, 2011

The Akinidad stela, is the funerary stela of Kharapkhael, the older brother of Akinidad. In this stela Akinidad described as a paqar (prince). This suggest that Kharapkhael was the original crown prince, not Akinidad of King Teriteqas and Queen Amanirenas.

Griffith believed that arme, meant Rome. This group of Meroitic syllabic signs did not mean Rome. These letters represented four words a ra m e , or "Indeed he gives measure".

In summary, the Hamadab 1 stela is not about a battle against Rome, it is a recording of the death of the oldest son of Teriteqas and Amanirenas, Kharapkhael. The text of this stela makes it clear in line 2, that Amanirenas:

"(She is to) give the glowing good bequeathal (of) her crown prince.Go bring (him) Good. Bestow here protection on him. Go bring (here) Good. The good crown prince, indeed leaves for the good rebirth. The good son Kharapkhael('s)superior renewal will (be)close at hand."

This indicates that Kharapkhael was the original crown prince and that Akinidad only became crown prince as a result of the death of his older brother Kharapkhael. This death may have caused some political dissension in Meroe, since the death of Kharapkhael, may have made a brother of Teriteqas or Amanirenas eligible for the throne instead of Akinidad.

Akinidad is mentioned in many Meroitic inscriptions. Now that Hamadab 1, has been deciphered in its entirety we discover that King Teriteqas and Queen Amanirenas probably promoted Akinidad on many of their inscribed monuments to legitimize his appointment as crown prince of Meroe after the death of Kharapkhael. Teriteqas and Amanirenas therefore may have made travels to the Meroitic religious centers to attempt to find legitimization for Akinidad as crown prince.

Pilgrimages to Meroitic-Kushite holy places would have provided the public ample opportunity to see the new Crown Prince acting royal after he reached the age of maturity. These pilgrimages by Teriteqas and Amanirenas to religious sites in Meroe would explain the appearance of inscriptions bearing the name of Teriteqas, Amanirenas and Akinidad at many Meroitic religious sites.

The final textual material relating to Akinidad comes from an unpublished stela found at Qasr Ibrim. This stela is Qasr Ibrim 1420.

Researchers usually refer to Qasr Ibrim 1420 as the stela of Amanishaketo and Akinidad stela (Torok, 1997). But our examination of a photograph of Qasr Ibrim 1420 indicate that Amanishaketo is not mentioned on this stela.

Qasr Ibrim 1420 is a fairly large stela. This stela was broken and deliberately disfigured. The top of the stela is broken but a pair of wings were engraved in this area as evidenced by the tips of each wing remaining visible on Qasr Ibrim 1420 today.

Qasr Ibrim 1420 has a long inscription. Presently we find 37 lines of cursive Meroitic script on this stela. There were probably additional lines on this stela, because the stela is broken below line 37.

This stela indicates that Akinidad died while he was a prince. We can not publish a translation of the entire document but it appears that Qasr 1420 was a funerary stela.

As a result of the fact that this inscription is not published I will only quote from lines 1-4 of Qasr Ibrim 1420.
Here we read:

1." He goes to prepare the renewal (and) protection of the abstract personality. Protect the prestige of the prince as is the tradition (and) vouchsafe the soul and honorable offering."

2. Produce revitalization of the Ba to leave a grand legacy (is) obligatory...vouchsafe and guide his abstract personality, may it go forth to praise his spirit.

3. The grand patron praises the Chief. Aman opens the shinning translucent spirit for rebirth. (There) will be eternal honor indeed for the prince.

4. "The good embarkation of Akinidad (to Paradise) to will grant the patron a boon, (and) bring (him) eternal good".

These few quotes from Qasr Ibrim 1420 indicate that at the time this document was written Akinidad was recognized as both Chief and Prince. In this passage the Meroitic term wl was used to designate Akinidad as a prince, instead of pqr.

The term wl 'prince', was probably reserved for Meroite princes that held administrative responsibilities. In addition to wl, being engraved on the Qasr Ibrim 1420 stela we also find use of wl to denote a prince in the inscriptions associated with the personage Arayesabkheqo, interned in pyramid N.36.

Qasr Ibrim 1420 is the only textual evidence where Akinidad is referred to as w-ne 'Chief'. This suggest that at the time Akinidad died he was recognized as the leader of government at Qasr Ibrim. This would have been an important post for Akinidad, given the strategic location of Qasr Ibrim as a major center of culture, commerce and trade . To understand the destruction of Qasr Ibrim 1420, we must remember some of the events associated with the Meroitic-Roman War.

In 24 B.C. Roman forces were sent to fight in Arabia. According to Pliny and Strabo the Meroite-Kushites sacked Aswan and destroyed the Roman statues at Philae (Torok, 1997; Welsby, 1996).

In response to the Kushite expedition, Gaius Petronius with a force of 10,000 infantry and 800 horses pushed the Kushites back to Pselchis. Strabo (17.1.53) mentions the fact that the Meroites were led by a Candace.

The Romans and Kushites, according to Strabo began peace negotiations at Dakka in 24 B.C.. The negotiations failed, and the Romans puched their forces deeper into Meroitic-Kushite territory as far as Sara. They also established forts at Qasr Ibrim (Torok, 1997; Welsby, 1996).

Akinidad was probably killed in 24 B.C. Strabo (17.1.54) mentions that the Candace's son was killed during this campaign. This son of the Candance was probably Akinidad.

We know that Akinidad was in Dakka on two occasions, once with Teriteqas, and later only with Amanirenas. In Dakka 2, we discover that Akinidad died at Dakka. This is most interesting because, the Romans pushed the Meroites back to Dakka in 24 B.C.

If Akinidad had been wounded outside Dakka, Amanirenas may have stopped in the town to obtain medical treatment for her son. After Akinidad died in the town, Amanirenas may have withdrawn from peace talks and continued the War.

If these events occurned , Amanirenas probably had the Qasr Ibrim 1420 stela erected in Qasr Ibrim, to honor Akinidad who had served as the Chief of the city during the Meroitic-Roman War. The Qasr Ibrim 1420 stela was probably defaced and broken during the Roman occupation of Qasr Ibrim to show their contempt for the Meroites.

The Meroites resisted Roman occupation. By 22 B.C., the Meroites retook Qasr Ibrim from the Romans. In 21 B.C., a peace treaty was concluded between Augustus, and Meroite envoys on the Island of Samos.

The textual evidence makes it clear that Akinidad remained a paqar (prince) until his death at Dakka in 24 B.C.

The evidence of the Dakka 2 inscription and Hamadab 2 indicate that Akinidad probably died during Amanirenas rule of Merotic-Kush. After Teriteqas was killed during the Meroitic-Roman War, Akinidad may have become recognized as King, but without official succession, and his untimely death at Dakka, he remained until his death officially Crown Prince. This would explain our inability to find any evidence of Akinidad being recognized as anything more than a paqar, rather than a qore (king).

Although we can positively maintain that Akinidad probably never assumed the throne in the Meroitic Sudan, we still have to answer the question where was Akinidad buried? Most Meroitists agree that the pyramids of King Teriteqas and Queen Amanirenas are located at Gebel Barkel. Another pyramid which is "chronologically attached" to these pyramids is Bar.5 (Reisner 1923 ,60).

The Bar 5 pyramid has the type -form analogous to the Beg. N.14 and Beg. N.21 pyramids which are assigned to King Teriteqas and Queen Amanirenas respectively. (Reisner 1923,60) Reisner found a male in this pyramid. This male lacked a crown of uraeus. This led Reisner (1923) to assume that this male never became King. Given the analogous nature of Bar. 5, and the Bar.4 and Bar. 9 pyramids suggest that this may be the pyramid of Akinidad who never became ruler.

The death of both Akinidad and Kharapkhael probably led to Amanirenas assuming the role of ruler at Meroe until her death. This meant that no direct male descendant of Teriteqas took over the throne after his death .
As a result of the Meroitic-Roman War we will never know what kind of ruler Akinidad would have become if he had not died at Dakka. But we can say that Akinidad never became King, he died as Crown Prince of Meroe.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Although Northern Indian,and Indian history in general is written from the Aryan perspective, many Dravidian and Non-Aryan rulers ruled India. For example tradition has it that monarchies were concentrated in the Ganges plain where Ethiopians or Kushites who had intermarried with the Indians. As a result, the Indian Republics of 600-321 B.C., were found by Black tribes in India, not the Vedic/Aryan tribes.

The founders of these Republics were called Kshtriyas, they did not accept Vedic orthodoxy nor did they honor the Brahmans and Vedic rituals. The Kushite origin of the Kshtriyas is obvious in the root of their name Ksh, which corresponds to the name Kush=Ksh.

The Kshtriyas primary interest was in agriculture. They did not recognize single ownership of land as among the Aryans. All the land in the Kshtriya Republics was acknowledged as being the property of the villagers.

Some of the Kshtriyas may have been descendants of the Nubian army , that tradition claims was led by King Chliaros, who conquered India, all the way to the river Ganges. The victory of this king in India may explain the identification by the Aryans of Meluhhaites in the Ganges region. This results from the fact that the name Meluhha was used to denote Nubia-Kush by the Sumero-Akkadians.

The title of the Kshtriya leaders was Rajbansis , a term corresponding to rajput or Raja. Social and political power lay with the rajas / rajput and the representatives of the elected assembly.The term rajput means "royal descent".

These ancient Indians held the woman in high esteem. This was anti-Aryan thinking. To the Aryans, women were recognized as chattel. But among the Kshtriya rajas, many of these rulers were influenced by the queen mother or dowager. Lineage was traced through the mother.

This form of succession was to dominate in India until the ascendancy of the Brahmans. The Kshtriyas practiced Buddhism rather than Hindus. It is interesting to note that when the Buddhist pray they call upon Ad. As we know from the historical literature the Kushites were the Adites, who occupied most of Arabia before the Aryan invasions.

The tribe of Ad is suppose to be the grandson of Ham, the Biblical ancestor of the Blacks. By calling on Ad the Kshtriyas were probably paying respect to their ancestors.

The descendants of the Kshtriya were conquered by Alexander the Great . Under Alexander, the Greeks learned about Indian science and culture. These Greeks later took the Indian sciences to Macedonia.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

According to iGENEA King Tut of ancient Egypt carried the R1-M173 haplogroup.R1-M269 does not indicate that King Tut was caucasoid. It is further confirmation of the African origin of King Tut given the greatest diversity of R1-M173 in Africa (Winters, 2010b, 2010c).

R1b1-P25 is found in Western Eurasia. Haplogroup R1b1* is found in Africa at various frequencies. Berniell-Lee et al (2009) found in their study that 5.2% carried Rb1*. The frequency of R1b1* among the Bantu ranged from 2-20. The bearers of R1b1* among the Pygmy populations ranged from 1-5% (Berniell-Lee et al, 2009). The frequency of R1b1 among Guinea-Bissau populations was 12% (Carvalho et al,2010).

The Kushites who belonged to the -roup people of uintroduced R1 to Eurasia (Winters, 2010c).These Kusites founded the Sumerian and Elamite civilizations.

Y-Chromosome R1-M173 was probably spread in Western Europe first by African Roman soldiers, and later by African Muslims when they conquered Western Europe as Moors. This would explain why 60-70% French and Spanish males carry this y-haplogroup.

Around 0.1 of Sub Saharan Africans carry R1b1b2. Wood et al (2009) found that Khoisan (2.2%) and Niger-Congo (0.4%) speakers carried the R-M269 y-chromosome. The Niger-Congo speakers formed a significant population in the nomes of Upper Egypt, where the founders of the 18th dynasty originated.

Haplogroup R1b1b2 was probably taken to Europe by African Roman soldiers. Africans were first recorded in the Western Europe 1800 years ago, as Roman soldiers defending Hadrian's Wall. There was a skeleton African Roman soilder recently found in Britain.

Other Africans were found in Britain including the Rich African women called the bangled lady.

These skeletons show how heavily integrated Africans were in western Europe. This would explain the widespread nature of y-chromosome R1-M173 in Europe.

In addition to R1-M173 in western Europe, the African y-chromosome haplogroup A1 was also recently found in Britain.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Afrocentric study provides the African American the self discipline, the intellectual ideals, love of learning and other motivational attributes necessary for their acquisition of success, and protection from the mental, and physical suffering caused by WHITE RACISM which takes hold of Third World people due to the C.A.I.D.S. virus.

On the other hand, Eurocentricism because of its roots in white supremacy and Negro inferiority cause these salient African attributes to be lacking in most African Americans. Jewish scholars long ago recognized the need for self segregation i.e., Jewish institutions to support Jewish traditions.

Afrocentric studies should be compared to Jewish studies. Jewish studies aim to teach Judaism to Jews and promote Jewish learning and scholarship. No serious commentators attack the self segregation institution of the Jews that promote Jewish learning and Jewish self esteem.

Given this reality, Afrocentricism major objective is to foster Afrocentric learning and scholarship and teach the lessons of African civilization to African Americans so they can see the learning,science and institutions this civilization called into being in the East and the West. This body of knowledge should promote confidence in African American youth so they can compete with their fellow Americans.

Today their is an all out attack against Afrocentricism by the Media establishment. No Eurocentric scholars will openly support their attack against Afrocentric scholars by presenting opposing evidence from history,art and archaeology to dispute the Afrocentric claims they just attack Afrocentric scholars and misrepresent what they have said or written.

Many Eurocentric scholars reject Afrocentricism because of their desire to hide the TRUTH ABOUT THE AFRICAN'S PAST and continue to perpetuate racism. These people refuse to see the African American, or Africans in Africa and the rest of the Diaspora develop self respect and racial self esteem. Dr.M.K.Asante, of Temple University observed that: "Most African-American children sit in classrooms, yet are outside the information being discussed. The white child sits in the middle of information, whether it is literature, history, politics or art. The task of the Afrocentric curriculum is finding patterns in African- American history and culture that help the teacher place the child in the middle of the intellectual experience". [i]

Over the past twenty years Afro-American researchers have been developing the idea of Afrocentricism. This field of Africalogical research has been excellently outlined by Asante (1990) when he observed that:

"The Afrocentrist seeks to uncover and use codes, paradigms, symbols, motifs, myhts and circles of discussion that reinforce the centrality of African ideals values as a valid frame of reference for acquiring and examining data".(p.6)

Although Afrocentric scholars have been writing on africalogical themes for many years due to the success of the late Dr. Asa G. Hilliard of Georgia State University and Molefi Kete Asante of Temple University, the Afrocentric idea in education has spread from a small group of advanced Afro-American scholars to high school and elementary school teachers. Africalogy, as explained by Asante (1990,p.30) "builds upon theoretical princeples outlined by previous scholars....The fundamental theoretical bases for Africalogy are derived from the Afrocentric perspective".

Due to the attempt of many educators to advance Afrocentricism as a part of the multicultural perspective in the social science/ social studies curriculum there has been a white backlash.

Given the increasing popularity of Afrocentricism and multiculturalism among teachers around the United States, man white "resisters" have began a campaign to discredit Afrocentricism which is really an educational idea aimed to establish racial self-esteem.

Racial self esteem is pride in one's own race/ethnic group. Racial self esteem, which is the goal of Afrocentricism can not be equated with racism because racism is the notion that one's own ethnic group is superior to other races or ethnic groups. Afrocentricism just explains the historical role of the African in history.It is based upon the reality truth of the sources of history. It aims to combat C.A.I.D.S.

The letters C.A.I.D.S. mean Culturally Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. C.A.I.D.S. has caused much destruction in the African American community, it is the psychological equivalent to the A.I.D.S. virus.

The C.A.I.D.S. virus is caused primarily by placing the pursuit of European culture and values over the traditional culture and values of Afro American and African people. This lack of race pride, knowledge of one's past leads to feelings of racial inferiority. Due to C.A.I.D.S. many African Americans are ignorant of their past, and thusly lack the human values necessary to protect African American culture from self destruction.

The Eurocentrists refer to Afrocentricism as "a cult", "group separatism", "educational separatism" or "racism". In their opinion Afrocentricism is anti Americanism. To support this claim they admonish that the basic American principles: 1) separation of powers, 2) representative government, human rights and ,4) individual liberty all came from Europe. In reality, although these philosophical trends were used to develop the American value system they were not the traditions of Europeans. No historian will deny that before America, no European government accepted these ideas. In fact the American system is recognized as one of "history's boldest experiments".

Although democratic traditions were not present in Europe until the rise of the United States, in Africa these values and others had been around for thousands of years. For example, whereas Greek democracy only allowed the propertied class to participate in government, in Africa the people often chose their own representatives who legislated laws for their communities.

Whereas in Europe, the conquerors ruled with an iron hand, and deviance from majority norms were not allowed, in Africa the governmental system even under an Emperor was a Federal system in which all the ethnic groups were allowed full autonomy, as long as they recognized the supremacy of the Emperor. In empires such as Arwe in modern Ethiopia, Kush, Ghana and Mali the individual rights, liberties and ethnic cultures were recognized. As a result although we see in European history where entire populations were fully assimilated with the lost of language and culture , or entire races have disappeared or are experiencing genocide like the Bosnians are today in the name of " Ethnic Cleansing"; in Africa on the otherhand, changes in the government did not result in extermination of entire tribes and the resulting lost of language until the modern period as a result of colonial European influences. This lack of a true democratic traditions among Europeans explains their present attack on Afrocentricism because, it declares that African Americans have a history and culture that must be respected.

The view of Western culture is that man must make progress. But progress is not made by Europeans for the future of Mankind. Progress to the European is self-centered progress, aimed at satisfying the needs of the individual. According to Michael Bradley, author of The Iceman's Inheritance, Europeans try to surpass "the past, and proclaim the unique identity of each successive lifetime, with the invention of the concept of progress". He continues, to note that this progress does not benefit future generations because, "Instinctual territorial defense of identity demanded that the past be surpassed and that the future be limited" (p.17). Bradley, a European himself explained that ,"Democracy is a form of government that assumes distrust on the part of the governed, [and] dishonesty on the part of the government. Our checks and balances presuppose no trusting or fitting relationship between leaders and followers, no mutually beneficial pact".

This view is in sharp contrast to the African view of government. Professor Joseph Ki Zerbo writing in the UNESCO Courier, observed that "In spite of instances of sanguinary autocracy, the State authority in black Africa nearly always took the form of a limited monarchy within a framework of corporate bodies and customs, veritable unwritten constitutions most often inherited from an earlier organization or social stratifications."He continued ,"Their decentralization, adopted as deliberate choices, allowed the basic communities to function with a very real measure of autonomy even in the great empires like Mali".

At the base of Eurocentricism is the doctrine of white supremacy. This ideological foundation aims to thwart the African Americans search for manhood and self assertion, when ever they encounter intensified prejudice by white Americans.

A major component of Eurocentricism is the notion of African American intellectual inferiority. As a result, European scholars can write and research the history of any people on earth. African Americans on the otherhand, are believed to lack the intellectual capacity to research, let alone write history.

Due to the alleged intellectual inferiority of African Americans it is believed that they are unsuited to write ancient history, international affairs, or archaeology. This may result from several factors especially racial bias and social position. These factors are important ,because of the fact that formerly persons writing on these topics usually came from well to do families that could provide them with the capital to undertake research activities abroad. This belief has ghettoized African American scholars and authors , to writing only about slavery, the slave trade and/or the cycle of poverty typified by life in the urban centers of the United States.

Due to C.A.I.D.S. the vast majority of African Americans feel inferior to Europeans. Because of these feelings of inferiority many middle class African Americans and the Black Church have perpetuated Eurocentricism instead of fighting to encourage race pride among African Americans. This failure to assert manliness has allowed C.A.I.D.S. to run rampant in Afro America . This malady has caused the rise of many social problems among African Americans who have adopted a negative lifestyle: gangs, bastardy and etc., first imposed on the African slave, but today identical negative behaviors are being perpetua-ted by African Americans who believe that Black Culture is having children out of wedlock, and any other negative visions of America such as gangbanging popularized by the media. All of these negative cultural elements have no basis in Africa, and are the result of C.A.I.D.S.

The African American middle class after the 1920's has avoided identification with Afrocentricism, cultural nationalism or race consciousness. Harold Cruse has pointed out that "The [Southern] black middle class as it was constituted (even in the north) was not committed to any serious sponsorship of promising artists or any involvement in the 'politics of culture'". [ii]

The Church , long an expression of African American independence has also failed to combat the destructive effects of C.A.I.D.S., because its middle class materialist orientation. [iii] The capitulation of the Black Church and the African American middle class to Eurocentric values has not brought them assimilation or integration into the American mainstream , but no true African-American cultural identity , based on African history and African traditions. [iv]

This is especially true of African American academics. Granted,today we have more African American professors then ever before. Yet, these academics produce few if any research articles, or even serve as editors of mainstream intellectual journals. The most glaring evidence of the devastating effects of C.A.I.D.S., is that except for the Afrocentric scholars who self publish , since the demise of the journal Black World, in the 1970's African Americans do not have a journal which expresses the intellectual ideas, and culture of the African in America. The failure of the African American academics /intellectuals to publish their own journal suggest that either they have nothing to say, are afraid to express their own opinions without the approval of the department heads at the Universities where they teach, or they simply feel inferior to whites because of their contraction of the C.A.I.D.S. virus. The failure of African American intellectuals to publish their work in mainstream publications also highlight the inability of African Americans to be fully integrated into American academia. Due to Eurocentricism , even those African American "scholars " recognized as competent researchers can only hope to associate with the American Academic Establishment, not assimi-late into it.

Afrocentricism is the ultimate remedy for the diseases associated with C.A.I.D.S. , such as alleged racial inferiority and racism that destroy the spirit of African Americans, and especially the self confidence one needs to compete in the United States face the challenge of LIFE and WIN! Asante, has noted that "Afrocentricity resonates with the African-American community because it is fundamental to sanity. It is the fastest growing intellectual and practical idea in the community because of its validity when tested against other experiences". [v]

W.E.B. DuBois, in The Souls of Black Folks, has categorize three principle responses of African Americans to the maladies associated with the C.A.I.D.S. especially white racism. They are l) revolt and revenge, 2) submission to the will of the racist, and 3) a determined effort for self esteem [vi].

According DuBois, the first response of African-Americans to racism can be categorize as the slave insurrections led by Gabriel in Virginia in 1800, Vesey in Carolina in 1822, and Nat Turner also in Virginia around 1831. After slavery this period is best typified by the Black Nationalist Movement of the 1960's, which began with the martyrdom of Malcolm X and the rise of militant organizations in African-American communities such as the Black Panthers, SNCC and the Republic of New Africa. These movements, like the slave rebellions a hundred years earlier were brutally suppressed and destroyed by local state and national police agencies.

The second form of response made by African American to white racism is typified by the African American middle class , Black Church and violent African American gangs. The gangs show their affliction with C.A.I.D.S. through their preoccupation with acquiring material gain, wealth/money (the cornerstones of Eurocentricism the free enterprise economic system with little concern about what happens to their fellow man in the process of acquiring material gain. As a result although many African American gangs will have very positive pro Black "literature", i.e., by laws and history that they teach members of gang to justify their existence as a "positive" force in the community;but in reality , members of these gangs sell drugs and murder one another simply for the love of money. This only increases the riches of peopling living outside their communities, and support the Eurocentric myths that African people can not accomplish positive things without the guidance of Europeans, their culture and "science".

The third response to white racism was formerly the "Negro" Renaissance of the 1920's. Today this response to white supremacy founded upon objective scholarship is Afrocentricism. An Afrocentric view of history is especially needed to combat the debilitating effects of white supremacy. It was noted in the report of the Task Force on Minorities commissioned by the New York State Board of Education that:"African Americans, Asian Americans, Puerto Rican/ Latinos and Native Americans have all been victims of an intellectual and educational oppression that has characterized the culture and institutions of the United States and the European American World for Centuries.

The aim of Afrocentricism is to strengthen the cultural awareness of African people so they can have the self confidence to fight C.A.I.D.S. Afrocentricism is the ideational code African Americans can use to conceptualize the universe in which they live and interact. Culture can be defined as man's learned, accumulated social experience including man's art, belief, customs, knowledge, law and morals that are transmitted and shared by a social group. In general culture refers to a system of learned ideas, not what we do or make.

The second aim of Afrocentricism is the unification of African Americans into a compact enlighten society. Society refers to a collection of people who share a common culture and language that exist as a distinct unit. The awareness of African civilizations by African people should encourage racial self esteem and help them recognize their brilliant past, so they can know the depth of their own potential and work for a positive , productive future.

Afrocentric scholars research the history of African and black civilizations to recover the true history of Black and African people and their achievements and contribution to the rise of world civilization and western cultural and social values. This results from the fact that history is society's method of explaining an individual's self image within a given society. This unifies that individual to other members of the society. It is through history, that a conglomerate of individuals come together to express a shared identity and culture.

In summary , African-Americans are confronted by a debilitating disease C.A.I.D.S, which if left unchecked can make it impossible for African-American youth to suceed, with the self-esteem necessary to avoid gangs and other negative cultural expressions rampant in African-American communities since slavery. To remedy the spread of this contagious disease we advocate Afrocentrism , and the knowledge of the role of "Blacks" in the creation of WORLD CIVILIZATION. Let the truth be seen by ALL.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

The horse period in Africa is usually dated between 2000 and 1200 BC. These dates correspond to the archaeological research.There were two horses common to Africa. A horse introduced to Africa by the Hysos and a native small size horse common to much of North and West Africa.

It is usually taken for granted that the horse was introduced to African and Dravidian people by Asians or Indo-Europeans. But the evidence suggest that the horse was early domesticated by the Afro-Dravidian people long before the Indo-Europeans employed the horse.

It has usually been assumed that the horse was introduced into Africa by the Hyksos. But as indicated below the affinities between the terms for horse in Dravidian and African languages indicate that the horse was domesticated by Dravidians, and other Proto-Saharans before the Asian invasion of Egypt and spread of the Indo-European speaking people. Archaeological evidence indicate that the horse was known to the Nubians centuries before its common use in Egypt .

Saharan Africans used the donkey and later horses as beast of burden. The ass or donkey was domesticated in the Sahara at Maadi 3650 BC . A domesticated Equus was found at Hierakonpolis dating around the same period .

The horse was also found at other sites in the Sahara. Skeletons of horses dating to between to around 2000 BC have been found in the Sahara-Sahel zone

Most researchers believe that th horse was introduced to Africa/Egypt by the Hysos after 1700BC. This is an interesting date, and far to late for the introduction of the horse given the archaeological evidence for horses at Maadi and the Sahel-Sahara zone.

In this region we find many horses depicted in the rock art. Some researchers have dated the rock art to after 1000 BC,based on the association of the camel with horses in the rock art.

Although the horse and camel are depicted in the rcok art of Nubia, the Sahel-Sahara and Upper Egypt they are considered to be related to the Graeco-Roman period . This date is far to late for the camel and horse to be used for domesticated purposes. During the Old Kingdom camel hair cord was used by the Egyptians . Moreover camel figurines are found in Gerzean (3500 BC) and archaic Egyptian context .

In the Sahelian-Saharan rock art the horse frequently depicted. The horse is often associated with being rode by the personages depicted in the rock art . In the same area we find engravings of men capturing horses probably to be rode or harnessed to a chariot . There are numerous pictures of blacks riding in chariots. Some researchers have dated this art to 600 BC. This date is probably far to late given the fact that the horse is attested too early in the archaeological history of Saharan Africa as discussed above.

At Buhen, one of the major fortresses of Nubia, which served as the headquarters of the Egyptian Viceroy of Kush a skeleton of a horse was found lying on the pavement of a Middle Kingdom rapart dating to 1675BC. This was only 25 years after the Hysos had conquered Egypt. This suggest that the Kushites had been riding horses for an extended period of time for them to be able to attack Buhen on horse back. This also supports the early habits of Africans riding horses as depicted in the rock art.

The Nubians and Upper Egyptians were great horsemen whereas the Lower Egyptians usually rode the chariot, the Nubian warriors of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty rode on horseback . The appearance of the horse laying on a Buhen rampart may indicate it was used by Kushite warriors attacking Buhen. No matter what the use of the horse was, the linguistic evidence makes it clear that the horse was part of Saharan culture before the advent of the Indo-Europeans.

There are many Dravidian and African words for horse, one of the most ancient Dravidian forms for horse may be Brahui hulli and Tamil ivuli. This ancient form of the word for horse appears in African languages with consonant /l/ or/d/, as the main consonant and the vowels /o/ or /u/. Below we compare the Malinke(M.)-Bambara (B.), Nubia (N), Wolof (W.) Hausa, Tamil (Ta), Malayam (Mal) Somali (Som.) Kanarese (Ka.) Telugu (Tel.) Kordofan Nubian (KN) languages. The African languages belong either to the Niger–Congo Family or the Cushitic Family of languages.

Horse

M. wolu, Bam. b’lu, wolo, N. unde Ta. Iyuli, Brahui hulli

Another ancient form of the word for horse was *par- / * far-. Below are other Dravidian-African terms for horse:

The Dravidians and Niger-Congo speakers formerly lived in the highlands of the Sahara. Many of these people migrated into West Africa. In West Africa according to Daniel McCall the horse was in the Sahara during the Second Millennium BC This would explain the affinity between the Dravidian and African terms for horse outlined above.

The Saharan horse was small in size. These horses match perfectly the horses depicted with the Saharan chariot riders. These horses were stiil be used by the warriors of ancient Ghana as noted by the Arabic writer al-Bekri when he visited this area.

The fact that the chariots found in West Africa resemble those of Crete does not mean that the riders of these chariots had to have come from Crete. In fact Greek traditions make it clear that the ancient Cretans, called Minoans came from Africa

The Dravidian and African languages share similar names for the wheel. For example:

It would appear that the proto-African-Dravidian term for wheel was *-ori / *-uri *go/uri and *ko/uri. The proto-South Dravidian term for wheel *tigu/ori . The linguistic evidence suggest that in the proto- language the speakers of proto-African-Dravidian used either the vowels o/u or a/i after the consonants. It is also evident that the l and r, were interchangeable in the construction of the term for wheel.

The horse disappeared from the Sahara as the area became increasingly drier. This forced the original West African domesticated horses to move southward where they are presently found.

It would appear that most of the early horsemen in Central Asia came from Iran, rather than southern Russia. The nomad artisans of the 3rd millennium BC steppes, show affinity to artisans from Iran (David 1986). During this period pastures provided grazing and herds with abundant food (Masson 1986:80). These horsemen would have been Dravidian and /or Elamite speaking people., not Indo-Iranian speaking people who seem to have learned about the horse from the Dravidian speaking people.

In the 2nd millennium BC the horse was extensively exploited throughout Central Asia (David 1986:486). For example, at the 17th 16th century BC site of Sinatasha, there are horse and chariot burials. These horsemen made fine bronzehead spears.

The oldest alleged Indo-European language spoken in Central Asia is Tocharian. Although many researchers believe Tocharian is an Indo-European language, it was probably in reality a trade language, used by the diverse people of Central Asia to communicate.

The Dravidian language is especially close to Tocharian A (TA). It would appear that Tocharian B (TB) has been greatly influenced by the Indo European languages. For example, there is labialization of labiovelars before voiceless consonants in TB.

In TA on the otherhand there are few traces of an earlier distinction between labiovelars and velar plus *w, clusters. For example:

. Many researchers may dispute the affinity between Dravidian Ø ivuli # and Tocharian A Ø yuk # 'horse'. Yet the identification of Tocharian A yuk, to Dravidian is much more supportable than the PIE root for horse. This results from the fact that there are five different Proto Indo European (PIE) roots for horse. This multitude of PIE roots for horse makes these terms inconclusive for the PIE lexicon. They also support the view that the horse was not domesticated by the Indo Europeans.

Thapar suggest that the Indo-Aryans were bilingual, and that all the Vedic agricultural terms were of non-Indo-European origin including langala ‘plough’ . Recent linguistic research makes it clear that even the Indo-Aryan terms for religion, magic, priest, deities and even soma are of non-I-A or I-E origin . David Anthony, notes in a “Comment” to the Lamberg-Karlovsky article on the origin of the Indo-Iranians observed that the Indo-Iranian word for soma plant [ancu] was borrowed from a non-Indo-European substrate language along with words for brick, plowshare and camel.

The Indic term for horse may also be of Dravidian origin. Caldwell noted that in Sanskrit the term for donkey was khara ‘ass’, in Tamil we have karudei. One of the Sanskrit terms for horse according to Caldwell is ghota, this corresponds to Ta. kudirai and goram . The Tamil term for horse may come from kudi ‘to lead’.

S.H. Levitt has presented convincing evidence that the Sanskrit term for horse is of Dravidian origin. Dr. Levitt illustared that as a result of Dravidian euphonic combinations, the Sanskrit terms kindhin, kundin, kilkin, kilvin ‘horse’, are clearly derived from (DEDR 1711) Tamil kutirai, Ma. Kutira, Te. gurramu, Kol. gurram ‘horse’ . It is important to remember that the l and r, and d and t are interchangeable in Dravidian languages. He noted that Dravidian –k-, -v- and –nt- are derivative suffixes, that alternate in the Sanskrit forms of Dravidian loan words as –l-, -nd- and –v- . The Dravidian origin for the Sanskrit terms for hosre should not be too surprising considering the fact that the Indo-Iranian terms associated with horsemanship and the horse are related to Hurrian and Hattic terms. The Hurrian and Hattic speakers spoke languages related the Dravidian group, since they were of Kushite origin.

The first wheeled vehicles probably came to Central Asia along with Dravidian and Manding speakers from Iran practicing a sedentary agro pastoralist culture (Winters 1990a). These wheeled vehicles were first pulled by cattle as evidenced from toys found at selected sites in Central Asia and the Indus Valley. These bovids pulled two or four wheeled wagons (Kohl 1988:594) This semi mobile pastoralism by the middle Bronze Age led to increased population levels in the steppe zone.

The Dravidians may have introduced the wagon, boat and plow/plough to Central Asia. The Tocharian A term 0 kukal # 'chariot,wagon' , has affinity to Dravidian rather than PIE *rotho 'wheel, chariot'. Below are the word geneology for PIE wheel:

In summary the Dravidian speaking people were familiar with horses since their former occupation of the Saharan highlands and the Sudan. As a result the Dravidian and African speaking people share common names for the horse and ass/donkey. It is also clear that these Dravidian speaking people may have brought horses with them to the Indus Valley when they founded the Dilmun, or Indus Valley civilization.

In addition, the linguistic evidence clearly suggest that the Mongolian, Tocharian and Indic terms for horse are probably the result of a Dravidian influence. The term for horse can not be a Indo-European loan because of the close relationship between Sanskrit kundin ‘horse’ and Tamil kutirai ‘ horse’ and the terms for ‘ass’ , point to a Dravidian origin for Indo-Iranian words relating to horse, wagon etc.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

A great way to see the genetic relationship between Dravidian and African languages is to compare the agricultural terms used by both groups.

The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359, 4300 and 2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples provided below from the Dravidian, Mande and Wolof languages show a close relationship between these language. These terms are outlined below:

The Paleo-Dravido-Africans came from a sedentary culture that domesticated cattle and grew numerous crops including wheat and millet. The Egyptian term for cultivation is 0 b j(w) #. Egyptian Ø b j(w) # corresponds to many African terms for cultivation:

The identification of a s>0/#_________e pattern for 'seed,grain' in the above languages suggest that these groups were familiar with seeds at the time they separated into distinct Supersets. The fact that Sumerian 0 se # and Egyptian 0 sen #, and Malinke Ø se # are all separated both in time and geographical area highlight the early use of seeds * se , by Paleo-Dravido-Africans.

It would appear that all the Proto-Dravidians were familiar with the cultivation of rice, yams and millet. This is not surprising because Weber (1998) made it clear that millet cultivation in ancient South Asia was associated with rice cultivation.

The evidence that Meroitic is related to Niger Congo should not be surprising because Niger-Congo speakers lived in Egypt and the Meroitic empire.

The majority of West Africans formerly lived just below Egypt in Nubia, before they moved westward into Cameroon, the Niger Valley and Senegambian regions. The traditional view of the dispersal of the Niger-Congo speakers would place their original home in the woodland savanna zone of West Africa, in the area of the Niger Basin (Ehret and Posnansky 1982:242 ).This is a most attractive theory but it does not conform to the archaeological data collected over the past decade. This material illustrates that until the second millennium BC the Inland Niger Delta was sparsely populated (McIntosh & McIntosh 1981 ,1986).

Wm. E. Welmers (1971),explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley. He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago. This was the center of the C-Group civilization.

In support of this theory he discusses the dogs of the Niger-Congo speakers. This is the unique barkless Basenji dogs which live in the Sudan and Uganda today, but were formerly recorded on Egyptian monuments (Welmers,1971). The Basanji dog is the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for dog.

According to Welmers the Basanji, is related to the Liberian Basenji breed of the Kpelle and Loma people of Liberia. Welmers believes that the Mande took these dogs with them on their migration westward. The Kpelle and Loma speak Mande languages.

Welmers (1971) believes that the Niger Valley region and other regions of West Africa may have been unoccupied when the Mande migrated westward Nubia. In support of this theory Welmers' notes that the Liberian Banji dogs ,show no cross-breeding with dogs kept by other African groups in West Africa, and point to the early introduction of this cannine population after the separation of the Mande from the other Niger-Congo speakers in the original upper Nile homeland for this population. As a result, he claims that the Mande migration occured before these groups entered the region.

Linguistic research make it clear that there is a close relationship between the Niger-Congo Superlanguage family and the Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in the Sudan. Heine and Nurse (2000), discuss the Nilo-Saharan connection. They note that when Westerman described African languages he used lexical evidence to include the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages into a Superfamily he called "Sudanic" (Heine & Nurse, 2000). Using Morphological and lexical similarities Gregerson indicated that these languages belonged to a macrophylum he named " Kongo-Saharan" (Heine and Nurse, 2000). Research by Blench reached the same conclusion, and he named this Superfamily: "Niger-Saharan" (Heine & Nurse, 2000).

Genetic evidence supports the upper Nile origin for the Niger-Congo speakers. Rosa et al, in Y-Chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau (2007), noted that while most Mande & Balanta carry the E3a-M2 gene, there are a number of Felupe-Djola, Papel, Fulbe and Mande carry the M3b*-M35 gene the same as many people in the Sudan.

In addition to haplogroup E3, we also find some carriers of R1*-M173 in Egypt and the Sudan. In Figure 1 we observe that 34% of the carriers of y-chromosome M173 in Africa speak Niger-Congo languages. This genetic evidence makes it clear that R1*-M173 was probably carried by some C-Group speakers.

Coia et al (2005) provides substantial data that the presence of R1*-M173 did not follow the spread of the spread of mtDNA haplogroup U6 in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is found in North Africa (Coia et al, 2005). This suggest that R1*-M173 may not be the result of back migration from Asia if this theory depends on the spread of haplogroup U6 in areas where R1*-M173 is found.

Welmers proposed an upper Nile (Sudan-Uganda) homeland for the Niger-Congo speakers. He claims that they remained intact until 5000 years ago. This view is supported by linguistic and genetics evidence. The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages are related. The genetic evidence indicates that Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers carry the y-chromosomes M3b*-M35 and R1*-M173, an indicator for the earlier presence of speakers of this languages in an original Nile Valley homeland.

The Nile Valley origin of the Niger Congo speakers explains the close relationship between Meroitic, Egyptian, Beja and Niger-Congo languages.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Using boats the Kushites moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in Asia and Europe after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until 1400-1200 BC. During this period the Hua (Chinese) and Indo-European (I-E) speakers began to conquer the Kushites whose cities and economies were destroyed as a result of natural catastrophes which took place on the planet between 1400-1200 BC. Later, after 500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to settle parts of Central Asia. This is the reason behind the presence of the K-s-h element in many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan times had lapis lazuli deposits.

Kushites expanded into Inner Asia from two primary points of dispersal : Iran and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Kushites were called Hattians and Kaska. In the 2nd millennium BC, the north and east of Anatolia was inhabited by non-I-E speakers.

Anatolia was divided into two lands “the land of Kanis” and the “land of Hatti”. The Hatti were related to the Kaska people who lived in the Pontic mountains.

Hattians lived in Anatolia. They worshipped Kasku and Kusuh. They were especially prominent in the Pontic mountains. Their sister nation in the Halys Basin were the Kaska tribes. The Kaska and Hattians share the same names for gods, along with personal and place-names . The Kaska had a strong empire which was never defeated by the Hittites.

Singer (1981) has suggested that the Kaska, are remnants of the indigenous Hattian population which was forced northward by the Hittites. But at least as late as 1800 BC, Anatolia was basically settled by Hattians.

Anatolia was occupied by many Kushite groups,including the Kashkas and or Hatti. The Hatti , like the Dravidian speaking people were probably related

Some of the Tehenu or Kushites settled Anatolia. Some of the major Anatolian Kushite tribes were the Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).

The Hattic people, may be related to the[b] Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example: •English ……Hattic …..Egyptian…….. Malinke (Mande language)

powerful ……ur………. wr'great,big' ………fara

protect…….. $uh……… swh …………………solo-

head …………tup ………tp ……………tu 'strike the head'

up,upper….. tufa ………..tp……………… dya, tu 'raising ground'

to stretch put… pd ………pe,……………….. bamba

o prosper …….falfat …..-- …………………..find'ya

pour ……………duq …….---………………….. du 'to dispense'

child …………..pin………,pinu………………… den

Mother ………..na-a ………--…………………….. na

lord …………….sa ………..--………………………. sa

place ………….-ka………… -ka

The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his father's house'. This suggest that the first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.

•Hurrians

An important group in Anantolia in addition to the Hatti, were the Hurrians. The Hurrians enter Mesopotamia from the northeastern hilly area . They introduced horse-drawn war chariots to Mesopotamia .

Hurrians penetrate Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine between 1700-1500 BC. The major Hurrian Kingdom was Mitanni , which was founded by Sudarna I (c.1550), was established at Washukanni on the Khabur River . The Hurrian capital was Urkesh, one of its earliest kings was called Tupkish.

Linguistic and historical evidence support the view that Dravidians influenced Mittanni and Lycia . (Winters 1989a) Alain Anselin is sure that Dravidian speaking peoples once inhabited the Aegean . For example Anselin (1982, pp.111-114) has discussed many Dravidian place names found in the Aegean Sea area.

Two major groups in ancient Anatolia were the Hurrians and Lycians. Although the Hurrians are considered to be Indo-European speakers, some Hurrians probably spoke a Dravidian language.

The Hurrians lived in Mittanni. Mittanni was situated on the great bend of the Upper Euphrates river. Hurrian was spoken in eastern Anatolia and North Syria .

Most of what we know about Hurrian comes from the Tel al-Armarna letters. These letters were written to the Egyptian pharaoh. These letters are important because they were written in a language different from diplomatic Babylonian.

The letters written in the unknown language were numbered 22 and 25. In 1909 Bork, in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische Gesellschaft, wrote a translation of the letters.

In 1930, G.W. Brown proposed that the words in letters 22 and 25 were Dravidian especially Tamil. Brown (1930), has shown that the vowels and consonants of Hurrian and Dravidian are analogous. In support of this theory Brown (1930) noted the following similarities between Dravidian and Hurrian: 1) presence of a fullness of forms employed by both languages; 2) presence of active and passive verbal forms are not distinguished; 3) presence of verbal forms that are formed by particles; 4) presence of true relative pronouns is not found in these languages; 5) both languages employ negative verbal forms; 6) identical use of -m, as nominative; 7) similar pronouns; and 8) similar ending formations:

[*]Dravidian Hurrian

a a

-kku -ikka

imbu impu

There are analogous Dravidian and Hurrian terms:

English Hurrian Dravidian

mountain paba parampu

lady,woman aallay ali

King Sarr,zarr Ca, cira

god en en

give tan tara

to rule irn ire

father attai attan

wife,woman asti atti

Many researchers have noted the presence of many Indo-Aryan words. In Hurrians. This has led some researchers to conclude that Indo –Europeans may have ruled the Hurrians. This results from the fact that the names of the Hurrian gods are similar to the Aryan gods:

[*]Hurrian Sanskrit

Mi-it-va Mitra

Aru-na Varuna

In-da-ra Indra

Na-sa-at-tiya Nasatya

There are other Hurrian and Sanskrit terms that appear to show a relationship:

English Hurrian Sanskrit Tamil

One aika eka okka ‘together’

Three tera tri

Five panza panca añcu

Seven satta sapta

Nine na nava onpatu

Other Hurrian terms relate to Indo-Aryan:

English Hurrian I-A Tamil

Brown babru babhru pukar

Grey parita palita paraitu ‘old’

Reddish pinkara pingala puuval

English Mitanni Vedic Tamil

Warrior marya marya makan, maravan

References:

Itamar Singer, Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2) (1981), pp.119-149.

I believe that Dravidian languages were spoken in India when the Indo-Aryans invaded the region. The Proto-Indo-Aryan (Kaska/Mitanni/Hatti) speakers were probably descendents of the Kushites who formerly lived in Anatolia. Since Dravidians speakers also belonged to the Kushite Dwipa, like the Proto-Indo-Aryans it is only natural that the languages are related.

The relationship between the Dravidian languages and Prakritic languages is much more complicated than the ideas presented by Bh Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti argues that there were many Dravidians in India when the Indo-Aryans arrived; and that as a result Dravidian influenced the Indo-Aryan languages through the introduction of lexical items and (grammatical) structural features.

Due to early Dravidian settlement in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in Indo‑Aryan. There are Dravidian loans in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians.

There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over 300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (1962) found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. In addition, Indo-Aryan illustrates a widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to 700 lexical loans (Kuiper 1967; Southward 1977; Winters 1989).

Iran and several thousand along the southern border of Russia and Yugoslavia. (ISDL 1983:227)

Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. the number of Dravidian loans in Indo‑Aryan is expected to reach 750.

There are numerous examples of Indo‑Aryan structural borrowings from Dravidian. For example, the Bengali and Oriya plural suffix ‑ra is analogous to the Tamil plural suffix ‑ar. Both of these suffixes are restricted to names of intelligent beings. (Chatterji 1970:173) Oriya borrowed the ‑gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra 1983:67) Some researchers believe that the syntax of the Indo‑Aryan languages is ambivalent because of the Dravidian influence on these languages. As a result, they represent both SOV and SVO traits. If my theory is correct the relationship between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages is not the result of borrowing, it is due to the fact that the ancestors of the Vangi, Odri and Maharastri were descendents of the Kushite Anatolians.

In conclusion,the relationship between indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages are not the result, purely of contact with Dravidian speakers in India. These languages are related because the speakers of these languages formerly belonged to the C-Group or Kushite people of the region called Kusha Dwipa in the Sankritic text.

I believe that after the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms, these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads.

In Iran the Hatti, Kaska and Mitanni probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Indo-Aryan population. Here they may have met Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their Kushite culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Indo-Aryan (Mitannian-Hurrian-Kaska-Hatti) exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people in India who lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.

I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Aryan speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, down into India. This would explain why "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian, Kaska, Hatti and Mitanni people in Iran.

If this theory is correct the Kaska, Mittani and etc., were probably the ancestors of Prakrit speaking tribes of the Vangi, Odri and Maharastri.This view is supported by the relationship between Indo-Aryan and Mittani. H.H. Hock in Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship , noted that Mittani “words contained in these passages are phonetically closer to the earliest attested Indo-Aryan than to Old Iranian” (p. 62).

Friday, January 14, 2011

Myres et al argues that the neolithic European gene pool was probably influenced most, by events in Western Europe, rather than intrusive pioneer farmers from the Near East(1). They argue that R1b M412 lineages , phylogeographic and temperal patterns support a Central European origin for this clade and not a recent genetic heritage from Anatolia.

The archaeogenetic evidence fails to support this conclusion. The genetic, craniometric and archaeological evidence all support an African, rather than Southwest Asian or Central European origin for R1b.

Myres et al note the maritime spread of neolithic farming communities using impressed cardial pottery to coastal Mediterranean populations and Crete 9kya . They interpret the phylogeography as an indication of the probable spread of M269 from Anatolia. This is contrary to the archaeological data which recognize the migration of populations around this time period from Africa, not Anatolia .

Using ancient DNA Haak et al makes it clear that during the Linearbandkeramik (LBK), Neolithic culture 5kya the predominate Eurasian haplogroup was haplogroup N (2) . Caramelli et al’s discovery of the presence of haplogroup N among hunter-gatherer Aurignacian samples suggest continuity between Western European populations from the Holocene to the Neolithic period (3) .

The early coalescent estimate of M269*+L23 (x M412) chromosome between 8.5-12 kya (1) , suggest an African genesis for M269, rather than Southwest Asia, since we see not only Sub-Saharan populations entering the area around this time they also bring with them Sub-Saharan fauna (4) ; and African groups who carry R1b are not of Middle eastern Origin (5).

Many of the African populations that carry R1* M173 are associated with the the Kushite people of Nubia (6) . As a result we find many Eurasian ethnonyms of Anatolia and Mesopotamia that indicate a Kushite presence including the Ksaka tribe (7) ; and Kings of Kish/Kush (6) .

The craniometric evidence for the 4-5kya period indicates that many Mesopotamians were Sub-Saharan Africans (8 -9) . The craniometrics for the Anatolians correspond to Niger Congo and Kerma (Kushite) populations (10-11).

In conclusion, African skeletal remains appear in Southwest Asia during the LBK. This along with the variety of haplogroup R lineages in Sub-Saharan Africa , suggest an African rather than Eurasian origin for haplogroup R1.